User talk:Stevenson-Perez

Welcome...[edit]

Hello, Stevenson-Perez, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some useful pages to help you get started:

I hope you'll enjoy contributing as much as I do. When posting on discussion pages, please sign your messages. To do this, type four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

You are seeing this because in my patrols for vandalism, I saw you had edited a page. I also noticed that your talk page (this page) had a red link. That meant that the talk page didn't exist yet. I am sorry you can't eat the cookies, but they are still fresh. If you find a way to enjoy them, let me know. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘Scientific-Wisdom’[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article ‘Scientific-Wisdom’, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.--Parker007 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scientifc wisdom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TedFrank 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Scientific wisdom[edit]

A tag has been placed on Scientific wisdom, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

a1, Scientific-Wisdom already deleted

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TedFrank 13:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wisdom#scientific perspectives[edit]

Stevenson-Perez, the concepts in this section have been covered in other articles; literally hundreds of editors have added their wisdom to those articles. Perhaps a few more links to the other articles in the encyclopedia are in order. --Ancheta Wis 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the best part of wikipedia is the collaboration of the editors. The section noted seems to take a management point of view, which arose after the development of science. But that does not make this point of view scientific, as witnessed by the management of Chrysler Corporation, for example, which persists in producing product for which there is no market. Chrysler has gone through bankruptcy for this reason.

There is no logical reason for asserting that one stage of your methodology follows from the previous. We are then left with a pattern which may or may not be meaningful, and a program of original research. That does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia: Wikipedia: No Original Research.

Thus simply reinstating your edit to the section solves nothing, does not improve the idiosyncratic style of writing, and does not address the issue of logic: Wisdom does not follow as the fourth step of a bumper-sticker slogan. --Ancheta Wis 11:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Communities of Practice[edit]

I really don't know why you insist on doing this. I have never heard of Scientific Communities of Practice and you do not cite any sources to back up what you assert. The first time I gave you the benefit of the doubt and created a new category Scientific Community of Practice, but you have insited in duplicating (more or less) the same material here. I will delate it again - please, if you want to develop this idea, do it in the sub page I created. Compo 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 12, 2007

Regarding 'Scientific CoPs'

Dear Compo,

The Scientific CoP contribution was provided to the Wikipedia Communities of Practice file because of so much ongoing research activity within the scientific community on this topic, particularly in biomedicine.

The general CoP principle, as stated by Briggs & Souza, (as per the reference that we provided for the CoP site) applies to any stable organization -- including ALL scientific organizations.

Since 2003, we in the scientific community have come to understand the truthfulness and the usefulnes of the CoP principle in our scientific organizations, as well as central CoP knowledge-asset limitations that all scientific CoPs face. The issue of scientific CoP research has been championed by a host of international-caliber scientific agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (we also cite these references).

While we appreciate the token offering of a citation of Scientific CoPs in the 'See Also' category of the Communities of Practice file, we feel that the term 'Scientific Communities of Practice' deserves either a stand-alone file (that is searchable in the Wikipedia search engine) and/or a full citation in the Contents Section of the Communities of Practice file. If you prefer the latter option, we can accept the modified title of 'Communities of Practice -- From A Scientific Perspective'

Our bottom line of the notability and the relevance of our contribution is simply this: Beyond the applicability of the specific 'Scientific CoPs' topic to the overall economic productivity of many Western nations, 'The Scientific Perspective' on any Wikipeida topic merits consideration and provides balance to any presentation (just as does 'The Economic Perspective of _____' or 'The Philosophical Perspective of ____'.

We look forward to your thoughtful consideration of our proposal.

If we have not heard a response within the next 3 days, we will takes steps to ensure a broader review of the 'Communities of Practice' site material.

Sincerely, stevenson-perez

AfD nomination of Meaning (scientific)[edit]

I've nominated Meaning (scientific), an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Meaning (scientific) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Meaning (scientific) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - David Oberst 21:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions[edit]

There seem to be a number of problematic issues with your recent additions to Wikipedia. A few specific points:

You seem determined to insert largely similar content in multiple articles (Community of Practice, Knowledge management, Learning organization etc.)

You seem to have marked a number of edits as minor when it fact they have substantial text additions (example) or alterations (example).

You use emphasis such as bolding in inappropriate places, and inappropriate capitalization ("Agriculture-Based or Industry-Based""). It should be obvious from viewing existing articles that this style is inappropriate, but if not please see the various references at WP:STYLE.

Rather than go into endless detail on the text itself, let me summarize by saying it is poorly-written and filled with jargon, and has a declaratory tone more suitable to an essay or position paper than an encyclopedic article. A reader (at least this one) is left with the impression that a specific viewpoint is being inserted, rather than a proper review of the topic at hand. Some specific examples include:

This set of edits (diff) at DIKW

The entire Community of Practice#Communities of Practice (Scientific Perspective) section

Because of the turgid prose, it is sometimes difficult to determine exactly what some of the references are intended to justify. I will note however, merely as an example, that the "NIST Baldrige National Quality Program Health Care Criteria" [1] document which is cited in the Communities of Practice additions, manages to go for 80+ pages without using the phrase "communities of practice".

I'm sure that the concept of "communities of practice" is used in some way in the field of scientific research management, information theory, or whatever. However, and I suspect that mine will not be a minority view, your additions do not seem to be appropriate in form, tone, or balance as a representation of that usage, and the extension to general articles such as Wisdom is (in current form) inappropriate. You may wish to work with editors on article Talk pages, create example drafts in your own WP:USER space, and gain a better understanding of what is and isn't appropriate in a Wikipedia article (see WP:NPOV, WP:NOR) before making large edits. - David Oberst 18:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur entirely with every point made by David. Many of your contributions are not properly sourced or formatted; on the occasions when there have been sources cited, the sources do not support the claims made.

I would also add that it is inappropriate to take ownership of a Wikipedia article by removing tags placed by other editors without discussion (much less addressing those editors' concerns) or to engage in edit-warring whereby you simply without explanation add text that other editors have expressed concerns about while deleting.

There is also an issue of WP:NPOV#Undue_weight in many of your edits, e.g., Jonas Salk, where you turned a biography of the vaccine developer into a lengthy discussion of the philosophy of science; perhaps some of that was appropriate (though you did not comply with WP:A in showing that), but it certainly did not merit the disproportionate space in the article that you used.

I hope you work collaboratively in the future, because your current edit strategy has been disruptive. -- TedFrank 20:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur wiht the above points we saw the same behaviour with the Knowledge Managment article. Your contributions are not aligned with the purpose or spirit of the Wikipedia --Snowded 06:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice[edit]

This article has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice to participate in the discussion. -- TedFrank 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice. Other Wikipedia editors are not going to look at my talk page to decide whether to delete the article. Please take a look at the welcome page and read the policies and guidelines, as you seem unclear on the way Wikipedia works. -- TedFrank 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Scientific communities of practice, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a an AfD on a similarly titled article. If you can indicate how Scientific communities of practice is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:Scientific communities of practice saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. TedFrank 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised your conduct at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, if you wish to comment there. -- TedFrank 00:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Scientific community, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TedFrank 21:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 14, 2007 Response RE: The Suitability Of Scientific Communities of Practice for Wikipedia Inclusion[edit]

We apologize for any disruption caused by our unfamiliarity with the details of scripting in the submission of any of our contributions for Wikipedia: Any and all assistance in making necessary improvements in that regard will be greatly appreciated.

At the same time, the notability of this scientific subject material, that includes citations from notable international-caliber scientific agencies (like the U.S. National Institutes of Health), national scientific policy boards (like the U.S. National Academy of Sciences) and major academic institutions (like Northwestern University), seems unquestionable.

If any editors have different interpretations of any cited references, again -- we would appreciate your clarification.

In closing, we hope that the current debate is not a rejection of a 'Scientific Perspective' on any relevant subject issue (like 'communities of practice'): Scientific perspectives have their own stand-alone merit, as they add balance, to other views of a pertinent subject (such as a 'Philosphical Perspective' or an 'Economic Perspective'. All of the Wikipedia patterns of practice on other sites reveal this claim to be true.

There should not be any exception in this case: As the scientific readership of Wikipedia grows, then the scientific relevance (at least as a reading option) for any relevant issue should also grow.

We are contributing referenced and scientifically-objective reviews on important scientific topic areas that we manage professionally every day. While we welcome any constructive editorial contributions to our submitted material, we will do everything possible to ask for higher administrative action, if the stated intention is to reject any of our contributions -- mainly because they represent a 'Scientific Perspective'.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for continued inclusion of our contributions to Wikipedia. We also thank you for your consideration of our request for active, line-by-line, constructive improvement of our contributions to Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Stevenson-Perez 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)stevenson-perezStevenson-Perez 21:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that you are editing in good faith when, after two editors request that you discuss your drastic changes to articles, you make this undiscussed reversion edit to Learning organization, which has all of the problems we identified above, including a misidentified "minor edit" tag. Edit-warring is not appropriate on Wikipedia. In addition, you continue to make AfD arguments on a talk page instead of on the AfD page.

Please do not assume ownership of articles such as Learning organization. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. TedFrank 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive or hard to read formatting, or engage in improper edit-warring by improperly asserting ownership of articles, as you did to Purpose, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TedFrank 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning.
The next time you vandalize a page, or create a new version of a page that was deleted through proper process, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Chris 73 | Talk 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You'll be aware now that your actions on Wikipedia have been accounted as disruptive by several editors. I'm also concerned at the use of plural pronouns here: we do not allow multi-user or role accounts. To limit the work required in cleaning up behind you (of which there has been a fair bit) I have blocked you from editing. You can be unblocked when we have established the following:

Is this account used by a single individual only
Have you now understood the issues with the content you repeatedly posted
Have you accepted that the content has been removed for reasons based on Wikipedia policy, and no reposting in anything like the same words is appropriate

I do not think your actions are malicious, but they display an excess of zeal which is causing problems for others. We are all volunteers, and we do not need extra work. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]